Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - grave and criminal assault.

[2013]JRC072

Royal Court

(Samedi)

12 April 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

John McKinnon Watkins

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:

Age:  26.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

Attended at the victim's home at midnight, suspecting his girlfriend would be there with victim.  In garden, punched victim once to face, causing loss of one tooth, breaking another, and lacerations to the mouth.  Within earshot of a child.  Sent text messages to girlfriend during the hours before and after the incident which demonstrated premeditation and lack of remorse. 

Details of Mitigation:

No intent to cause injuries or knowledge of presence of child; plea; subsequent remorse.  Crown accepted plea and basis after victim submitted revised statement some months after incident. 

Previous Convictions:

18 offences, mainly motoring and drugs.  No previous for violence.  No custodial sentences. 

Conclusions:

Sentence and Observations of Court:

D. J. Hopwood, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate A. M. Harrison for the  Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are here to be sentenced on an Indictment which contains one count of a grave and criminal assault.  The circumstances of that assault were that you allowed your emotions to take over and you delivered one punch to the victim, but it was a very hard punch which caused him serious injury, knocking out one front tooth and breaking the other.  You followed that with a series of text messages which were completely unacceptable.  There was no provocation, and indeed, from what one can tell, the victim has behaved very much to your advantage since, in the sense that he has made no personal impact statement, he has made no claim for compensation and he made a further statement which appears to have exculpated you in some respects from what took place.  I say all those things because the Court is faced with sentencing you for a grave and criminal assault, which is a serious offence, particularly where serious injuries of this kind have been sustained and the first thoughts in such a case are always for the victim rather than for the defendant.  I want to make that absolutely plain. 

2.        Nonetheless, you do have some mitigation that is in your favour.  You pleaded guilty, the offence is mostly out of character, you have a supportive family and you have clearly expressed remorse which the Court accepts.  Even so, you would be looking at a custodial sentence in normal circumstances.  What we have taken into account is that you have served 2 months in custody on remand, or just over that, and in the circumstances we think that the right sentence to impose is a non-custodial sentence. 

3.        Accordingly, you are put on probation for a period of 12 months and that means that you must follow the instructions of the probation officer in all respects and attend the courses which he suggest that you should go on.  In addition, you will perform 180 hours' community service, the alternative to that would have been 12 months' imprisonment. 

4.        I must warn you that if you do not perform the Community Service Order then the Crown may well bring the matter back to Court, in which case the Court would be obliged to consider imposing the custodial sentence which is the alternative.  Community service is no let off.  The custodial sentence in a sense is being performed in the community and that is the way you must repay the debt to the community for this quite unacceptable behaviour.  As I say the Court's consideration really goes with the victim and not with you as the defendant. 

Authorities

Harrison-v-AG [2004] JLR 111.